"To the OP's comment, yes, it is a joke that CBS and ESPN shove WBB down our throats"
This is NOT an example of something being "shove(d) down our throats." No one is making you watch. Teaching religion in public schools under the guise of intelligent design is having something shoved down your throat.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — After arriving at UCLA as the signature signing of a heralded freshman class, Kiki Rice has found another level to her game at the most important time of the year. The point guard had 15 points as the fourt...
To the OP's comment, yes, it is a joke that CBS and ESPN shove WBB down our throats despite clearly very little interest in it (hence, why NCAAT games have home games that don't even sell out). WBB is a massive money pit for colleges because they have been bullied into massively overpaying for coaches who preside over teams that lose their schools millions of dollars each year (as opposed to MBB teams, which make millions of dollars each year). I don't know the stats for 2022/23 but it used to be that UConn and Tennessee were the only women's teams that broke even or eked out a profit with the rest blowing millions on bloated coaching contracts and 1st class travel like the men enjoy. WBB has to be the only profession where someone can demand (and get) a seven figure salary with the full knowledge that he or she will be running an enterprise guaranteed to lose millions of dollars each year.
The majority of college sports teams don’t make money. Even football programs often lose money considering how big the teams are, the travel, and equipment expenses. Not sure what you’re trying to say with this post.
No other non-revenue sports pay coaches 7 figures (or even close to it). All of the BCS football teams make money purely off of the TV revenue. Same thing with MBB. Which part of the statement that the only college sport that has coaches getting paid 7 figures despite there being a 100% probability that their sport will lose millions of dollars is WBB did you not get?
Please post the attendance figures for UCLA WBB (good luck finding them because most schools go out of their way not to report them because they are so embarrassing).
Please post the attendance figures for UCLA WBB (good luck finding them because most schools go out of their way not to report them because they are so embarrassing).
I stated earlier that many women's teams don't get spectators. I'm not arguing that nor am I surprised that their women don't get fans. However the UCLA men's football team had games with less than 30,000 which is embarrassing compared to the sold out football games in the SEC and big 10. Whether on campus or 40 minutes away it us embarrassing to Troy Aikman and other alumni and players.
Next year they'll have more Ohio State and Michigan fans at their home games than Bruin fans.
No other non-revenue sports pay coaches 7 figures (or even close to it). All of the BCS football teams make money purely off of the TV revenue. Same thing with MBB. Which part of the statement that the only college sport that has coaches getting paid 7 figures despite there being a 100% probability that their sport will lose millions of dollars is WBB did you not get?
I think the question is what should be done about it? Colleges overpay for coaches, tv networks overpromote a not so popular product. Ok true, but they are entitled to make these choices; who is bullying them to do this?
The woke crowd. Look at the ruckus the wokes created over the difference between the gyms the women and the men had at their Final Fours.
I enjoy WBB but it should be treated no different than every other sport that loses money (which is every sport except football, MBB and a couple of baseball programs), which means the coaches get paid around $100,000, teams use buses and vans for games a few hours away and players don't stay at the Four Seasons for road games. They are completely riding the gravy train of MBB and that is wrong.
This is a dumb comment. Shiffrin's skis are her equipment and that is very different from the field of play. A proper analogy would be if Shiffrin were made to wear size 15 sneakers or a men's XL jersey -- not made to use longer skis. Both men and women ski on the same slope and both men and women play on the same basketball court with the same rims. However, women do use a smaller ball than men so that is similar to lowering the hurdles in track to account for smaller bodies. Women's soccer plays on the same sized field with the same lines and the same sized goals despite women being smaller. That is a better comp than skiing.
You cannot be serious if you think women's tennis is better than men's tennis. It most definitely is not. It is popular and entertaining but it is played at a much lower level, which explains why women still only play 3 sets at the Grand Slams. Tennis knows that 5-set women's matches would take forever and be ridiculously boring. The only real stars in women's tennis are the Williams sisters and they are basically retired. Other than diehard tennis fans, nobody is paying up to watch Swiatek play (or even knows who she is).
To the OP's comment, yes, it is a joke that CBS and ESPN shove WBB down our throats despite clearly very little interest in it (hence, why NCAAT games have home games that don't even sell out). WBB is a massive money pit for colleges because they have been bullied into massively overpaying for coaches who preside over teams that lose their schools millions of dollars each year (as opposed to MBB teams, which make millions of dollars each year). I don't know the stats for 2022/23 but it used to be that UConn and Tennessee were the only women's teams that broke even or eked out a profit with the rest blowing millions on bloated coaching contracts and 1st class travel like the men enjoy. WBB has to be the only profession where someone can demand (and get) a seven figure salary with the full knowledge that he or she will be running an enterprise guaranteed to lose millions of dollars each year.
there so many idiots here who honestly pretend women are as athletic as men. well if they really believe this we only need one category. This is what i support either way. equal opportunity. strong queens can show their skill against men.
I don't think anyone is saying women are equally as athletic as men. But there are people saying women's sports can be as exciting as men's.
I think the question is what should be done about it? Colleges overpay for coaches, tv networks overpromote a not so popular product. Ok true, but they are entitled to make these choices; who is bullying them to do this?
nobody is bullying anyone. On the contrary, they have spent the entire course of sports history UNDER promoting womens sports only to have the misogynists turn around and say "see nobody watches them" and blatantly ignore the clear double standard of the unlevel marketing playing field. and when you present that fact to them, they reply "no, nobody watched them because they arent entertaining" which is BS because millions of people DO watch the women’s game when you promote it and put it on accessible airwaves. Thats why 4.9 million people watched last year’s championship game. because it was promoted and made available and people were interested enough to watch.
the misogynists also like to declare that women’s college basketball is a money pit and conveniently ignore the fact that the NCAA has always bundled women’s basketball with like 30 non revenue generating sports that operate at a loss. its like claiming that a perfectly decent working car is a junker because its bundled and sold with 30 junkers. but its not. if you separated it from that bundle you could sell it at a much higher average rate. the current contract (which ends next season) gives ESPN all 30+ of those sports for $34 million which the NCAA then divides evenly based on the total number of sports in that package to justify the statement that the women’s game "loses money" so that they could continue with the vicious cycle of not promoting or funding them. but thats a joke because it criminally undervalues it. in no way is womens basketball the same value as field hockey or squash. in fact, most independent experts estimate that the women’s tournament could have a market value of over $100 million per year if it was sold as a separate package. why dont they bundle fencing and diving and, oh, TRACK AND FIELD with the football contract? not to mention that the women get NO revenue sharing for making it to the NCAA Tournament like the men do to the tune of like $350,000 just for losing your first game. the women get nothing at all even if they win the Championship. that money could be used on better facilities and development opportunities which would lead to an even better game which is what the misogynists like to complain about to begin with. so you figure, based on that logic, they would be fully on board with more revenue sharing but my guess is they are happy to own the double standard on that point as well. anything that will allow them to continue to btch about the women’s game and the fact its on tv. and make pathetic threads like this endlessly...
In terms of popularity, it's clear that the tv networks and newspapers are making a huge effort to promote women's sports as compared to hte past. Will it make it popular? Chicken or egg? We'll see.
I went to ESPN to look for men's basketball scores the other day. Got annoyed they weren't #1 on the site but then realized it was a Princeton women's game so as an alum, I turned in and watched it.
Someone said they didn't believe some find women's tennis better than men's. I 100% did when Sampras was playing. I hated watching him play Wimbledon. Serve, point, serve point. etc. Now Federer and Nadal and those guys are so good you actually got back to rallies.
My uncle was an all-state basketball player for a small school in Texas. He told me he likes women's basketball better than men's as it reminds him of the way he played.
Personally, for me, women's basketball is really the only women's sport for me where the lack of absolute greatness makes it a little less enjoyable to watch. As I said I prefer it in tennis but not in hoops. And I imagine women's football would be the worse. Women can't throw nearly as far as men so the passing game would be far inferior and you need to hit a hole quickly as a running back.
Now my first job ever after college was working in women's professional tennis so maybe I am biased towards tennis. And I considered at the time working for the ABL. - the first women's league. It hought it was neat for society for women to have a league. When the WNBA rose up, my interest in working fell to zero as I thought, "They don't care about women's sports. They just want to protect their NBA teams. If women's basketball gets popular, it could hurt them a l ittle so they'll start a women's league and put the other league out of business."
The games are very good and exciting. The atmosphere in many venues is great and I was wrong, there is much more parity than ever. If you're not watching then you're missing good quality basketball.
The analysts who have looked into the number of fans and the game have determined the major issue is with females lack of viewing the game. Some men watch the NCAA women and the WNBA, but are turned off to some degree by the manly features of some players. It is the women who don't show up. See below:
The NCAA needs women to watch sports like men do. There is some evidence that this is occurring.
I have watched Caitlin Clark of Iowa this year. Someone would have to be pretty cynical to think that she is boring. She is one of the very few players who has a license to shoot from 40 feet in the game. She can also pass. She is like Curry, but perhaps takes longer shots!
The WNBA needs more women to watch in order to stay viable. It's no secret that NBA has been carrying the league since its inception. The following truth is hard to swallow, but it's the truth nonetheless -- the WNBA would be...
Regarding women watching the women's game. I used to ask the girls basketball players at my HS who they thought would win the NCAA tournament. I never specified which tournament. Only 1 girl ever answered the UConn or Notre Dame women. Everyone else assumed I meant the men's tournament and most of them only watched the men's tournament.
The games are very good and exciting. The atmosphere in many venues is great and I was wrong, there is much more parity than ever. If you're not watching then you're missing good quality basketball.
Thanks for admitting I was right. ;)
Ole Miss and Miami, among others, would also thank you. And I am so glad Colorado beat Duke!
The analysts who have looked into the number of fans and the game have determined the major issue is with females lack of viewing the game. Some men watch the NCAA women and the WNBA, but are turned off to some degree by the manly features of some players. It is the women who don't show up. See below:
The NCAA needs women to watch sports like men do. There is some evidence that this is occurring.
I have watched Caitlin Clark of Iowa this year. Someone would have to be pretty cynical to think that she is boring. She is one of the very few players who has a license to shoot from 40 feet in the game. She can also pass. She is like Curry, but perhaps takes longer shots!
